Rep. Eskamani’s Review of 6 Amendments on 2024 Ballot

Amendment 1 – Partisan School Board Members

Amendment 1 would make district school board elections partisan starting with the 2026 general election. Ironically, another ballot measure, approved by Florida voters in 1998, mandated in the state Constitution that those races be nonpartisan.

But, while not partisan on paper, school board elections have become far more politically contentious in recent years due to debates about COVID-19 measures and what books should be accessible to students. Indeed, Gov. Ron DeSantis took unprecedented steps to influence school board races in 2022 and is trying to flip seats in the coming election.

Lawmakers pushing the amendment (HJR 31), pointing to the current politicization, said it would only increase transparency for voters. Opponents worry it would further politicize school board races.

Rep. Eskamani’s Perspective

Nonpartisan school board elections ensure that the focus for public education remains on educational issues rather than political ideologies. This helps in making decisions that are in the best interest of students and teachers rather than aligning with what are often polarizing party politics. Nonpartisan elections also encourage a broader range of candidates to consider running, including those who may not align with a major political party but have valuable educational expertise and perspectives. With that said, in nonpartisan elections, voters are more likely to evaluate candidates based on their qualifications, experience, and stance on educational issues rather than their party affiliation. Finally, keeping school board elections nonpartisan helps reduce political polarization in local communities. It encourages collaboration and consensus-building among board members, which is crucial for addressing the diverse needs of students and schools. I will be voting no.

Amendment 4 – Abortion Access

Amendment 4 guarantees abortion access in Florida. This amendment is generating the most attention in Florida, especially since the Florida Supreme Court approved a six-week abortion ban that  is currently in effect, negatively impacting women across the state and Southeast United States. 

If Amendment 4 is approved by Florida voters, abortion access would be assured in the state until fetal viability, generally considered 24 weeks. It would also allow abortions when necessary to protect a patient’s health, as determined by a health care provider. 

Rep. Eskamani’s Perspective

Florida has put into place a near-total abortion ban that has stripped us away of our freedoms and created impossible situations for medical professionals, who now have to decide between life-saving care or criminalization when working within the field of obstetrics and gynecology. Some doctors in Florida have had to allow a patient to become more sick before they can access an abortion to save their life. For other women, they have had to leave the State of Florida to access care, traveling hundreds of miles away. Not only is all of this wrong, but they serve as examples of why politicians should stay out of the exam room and respect doctors to do their job — especially regarding such intimate situations. Regardless of one’s political affiliation, there is overwhelming agreement that decisions around one’s pregnancy are personal and private and must remain between that person, their family, their doctor, and their faith. For these reasons and more, I will be voting Yes on Amendment 4 to stop Florida’s extreme abortion ban. 

Amendment 2 – Right to Hunt and Fish

Amendment 2 establishes a state constitutional right to hunt and fish. If approved by voters, Florida would join around two dozen other states that already have that right in place, including nearby Georgia and Alabama. The amendment does face criticism from some conservationists. “The biggest concern for me and other mainstream conservationists is that the amendment proclaims hunting and fishing the ‘preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife,’ ” wrote Clay Henderson in an op-ed published by the Orlando Sentinel.

“Really? Often the preferred means to conserve fish and wildlife is to limit hunting and fishing to protect their numbers,” he added.

Rep. Eskamani’s Perspective

The right to hunt and fish already exists in Florida Statutes and there are very valid concerns shared by community partners and environmental groups that Amendment 2 would lead to the depletion of our oceans of fish and our forests of native wildlife. As noted by the Florida Audubon Society: “The amendment goes too far in declaring this right to hunt and fish as a ‘public right.’ No other right in our constitution is described in this way. It seems to imply this right is even more important than our other fundamental rights. Perhaps it means this right to hunt is more important than one’s right to ‘possess and protect property.’ If passed, this amendment could also allow for the return of inhumane means of hunting and fishing, including steel-jaw traps, spears, spearfishing, and gill nets. I will be voting no.

Amendment 5 – Homestead Annual Inflation Adjustment

Amendment 5 could lead to more savings for property owners who apply for homestead property tax exemptions — and cost local governments millions in reduced revenues. The Legislature-passed ballot measure (HJR 7017) requires annual adjustments to a chunk of the homestead exemption for inflation increases.

Those savings were touted by the lawmakers in favor of the measure, but some opponents worried about the cost to local government. The measure would reduce non-school local government property taxes by nearly $23 million in the 2025-26 fiscal year, the first time it would take effect, according to a legislative analysis. Within a few years, those losses would reach nearly $112 million, it estimates.

Rep. Eskamani’s Perspective

This amendment would deliver minimal consumer benefit but would be a big hit to local government budgets: the Revenue Estimating Conference estimates that if this passes, the impact on non-school local government property taxes in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 (the first year of implementation) would be approximately -$22.8 million, growing to approximately -$111.8 million in FY 2028-29, assuming current tax rates. If you divide $22.8 million between every homeowner in Florida (or even $111.8 million), that is a small benefit, but if you divide it between local governments, it is a bigger hit. Voting no ensures stable and predictable revenue streams for local governments, which are crucial for funding essential public services like infrastructure, public safety, and community programs. Reduced revenue from property taxes could lead to budget shortfalls, potentially resulting in increased taxes or fees in other areas and impacting the quality of public services. So, instead of this being a tax break, it becomes a tax shift — it simply shifts the responsibility from homesteaders to other participants in the property tax system, including small businesses, renters, and second-home owners. Additionally, the amendment may disproportionately benefit higher-value homeowners, exacerbating economic inequalities. I will be voting no.